2006 Tacoma - MPG Expectations

My take on this is that if the manufacturer specifies premium (likely 92 Octane - check handbook) then that's what you need.

If you use a lower Octane then the engine will likely detonate (ping), if it pings then the ping detector will retard the timing till the pinging stops and hold it there (roughly). THIS WILL REDUCE YOUR MPG because the engine is now operating less efficiently than it was designed to do.

PLUS, if the detector fails then the spark will advance into the ping range and your engine will likely be damaged by the detonation...YMMV...

Howdy Steve,

I don't actually own one of them but let me pass on what those on the Yahoo groups Toy_Coma list have concluded about the truck that you are looking at:

Last things first, per the owners' manual premium unleaded is not

*required*. You will take a MPG penalty of between 1 and 3 MPG by running a lower octane, depending on driving style, air temperature etc; there is also a slight performance penalty which may or may not be of concern to you. Currently the price difference between 89 and 91 octane is small enough that the consensus is generally that the higher octane is overall cheaper in the long run. Your own cost-benefit analysis may vary.

First things last, the EPA estimate on the label is fiction. You might get something close to that under the most ideal of circumstances, but the fruit of the EPA's requirements are most definitely unreal. That said, there may be some benefit in comparing plastic apples with plastic apples and wax oranges to wax oranges - a truck that lists an EPA mileage 2 MPG better than another may really get 2 MPG better mileage, regardless of what the real mileage numbers actually are.

As for *actual* mileage, I can only speak from personal experience with a truck that is more than ten years older. Firstly, I drive like a complete fool - like it was stolen as the saying goes, and have from day one. (just shy of 190K on the clock to date - Toyotas are tough). The truck was originally purchased in Lost Angeles and was used in the usual, 100 miles per day, up the sidewalk, across the lawn, down the alley, any shortcut is valid, full throttle or full brake, bumper to bumper at 8 MPH or 80 MPH, commuting style familiar to anyone who's ever had the pleasure of commuting through that smog-choked circle of Hades. I could easily shave 15% off of the EPA town mileage estimates and sometimes as much as 25% - but rarely, and no lower. On the rare occasions I could drive the highways LIKE highways (between 3 and 4 AM Sunday/Monday) I could get within 2-3 MPG of the EPA hwy estimate.

Of course, you might could do better - I assume for example that you really need the double cab, 4WD etc and not getting it to be handy the three times a year you actually use these features, else you would be asking about Celicas or some such. You may not drive as aggressively as I do - I crush Piuseses under the fenderwells of my jacked up, high performance (2wd, 4cyl) Tacoma to compensate for my inadequate manhood, or something ; you may not do that (see Prius Rage thread if that joke makes no sense).

If you really want to be a bean counter you'd factor in depreciation compared to other models - I know you're looking at buying but comparing the residual value numbers (for the same lease terms) of various makes/models is very instructive as to what Toyota Motor Credit (or whoever) believes the truck will be worth after you've driven it for a few years. You'd also compare insurance rates, maintenance costs, etc etc etc. In short, cost of ownership ain't all mileage and as a bean counter myself I can tell you that what you pour into the tank each week will *NOT* be the expensive part of owning that truck!

Got a Tacoma? Join psam-free

a Corolla? Join psam-free

I have an Access Cab, 6 speed manual. The sticker honestly states the range I typically see.

Premium is recommended, not required, per the manual.

I don't see a noticeable difference in either performance or MPG using

87 octane gas.

Fuel economy: deplorable Premium fuel: required

As an actual owner, I totally disagree. In fact, I'll call Bullshit!

Deplorable MPG? Compared to what? A Corolla? How about an apples to apples, real-world comparison? What vehicle has the same capability set and does so much better?

My 2005 V6, 4x4, 6 speed window sticker Toyota says 16-20 MPG. That's _exactly_ what I get! More towards the low end in all city driving,

80 MPH highway driving, or towing, and 21+ on 55-65 MPH long trips on 87 octane, REGULAR gas. I typically see 17-18, in my general use, which includes an awful lot of cold started, 5-7 mile trips with tools or materials in the back. The bottom line is that I get what's advertised.

I also have a Thule Xsporter ladder / boat rack that is frequently in the up position and loaded, adding even more drag.

Premium fuel? The actual owner's manual in my glove box states it's "recommended". I used premium for the first 3-4 tanks. After switching, I can't see a difference in driveability or MPG, so I never went back. I have the MPG numbers for *every* tank the truck has ever seen.

My Tacoma is a tall 4 wheel drive vehicle, with a LOT of wind drag,

4400 pound truck rated to tow 6500 pounds. Drive it hard or fast, the mileage goes down quickly, just as any other tall, powerful vehicle would. Highway speed makes a huge difference in MPG on draggy trucks, as it does on my Jeep Wrangler, or the hi-cubes I use for business. SLOW DOWN to the speed limit on the interstate, and the mileage gets a lot better! FWIW, the Tacoma's automatic tranny gets ~1 MPG better than the manual, due to gearing differences.

If mileage is all that important, do you really need 4WD? Do you really need a truck at all? Remember, the Tacoma Pose(Pre)Runner is a 2WD with the same ride height as the 4WD, none of the benefits, and exactly the same highway MPG damage.

Very eloquently put.

Fuel economy is a matter of opinion. 16 city and 20 highway is deplorable to me, even if it meets what EPA has advertised. If you're perfectly okay with it, so be it.

It is scientific and not subjective that these vehicles do run better with premium fuel regardless if one can subjectively notice the difference.

Since the engine has to work harder, however miniscule, I theorize that it would eventually lead to more wear as the vehicle accumulates more miles. This, in my opinion, makes premium fuel required. I also believe that people who use 87 octane when the manual specifically recommends premium are being cheap. They're certainly allowed that as they do own the vehicle.

Let's put it in a hypothetical situation. There are two of the same trucks for sale for the same price. They're exactly the same and have been driven and maintained exactly the same. The only difference is that one has always used premium fuel and the other one has always been run on 87 octane. Knowing this, buyers would inexorably purchase the one run on premium fuel. Why? Don't try to dissuade me. Just think about it.

Lastly, let me say that Tacomas are good trucks. If I had to purchase another, I certainly would buy one. I wouldn't even consider any of it's competiion...unless I need a Tundra instead.

Show me a vehicle with the same capabilities that does better.

Remember, that means 6500 pounds in towing, 1000+ pounds in a rust proof 6 foot bed, outstanding off-road capability (4wd LOW is required) and turning circle, fantastic resale value, great reliability, and still averages 18 MPG.

My Mitsubishi hi-cubes are get 6-7 MPG on diesel, but what else can carry a 16' hardwood plank, an entire kitchen of assembled cabinets, or fully assembled, custom large entertainment centers on different days?

Apples to apples, Bud...

I'll wait.

The Tundra has good gas mileage for its capability. There's no argument in that. I did have an old Nissan truck V6, Kingcab, 2WD. I average 20mpg mixed but it can only pull 5000 lbs.

But I don't need to tow 6500 lbs nor do I go off road. I get 24 mpg mixed driving on my Lexus GS. To me, 18 mpg is deplorable. It may not be apples to apples, but I need an orange not an apple.

You realize the Nissan would probably get about 18 overall, if it were

4WD, right? It would, I had a 4WD '96 King Cab... Your 2WD, enjoyed a lower ride height, less weight, and a simpler, more efficient drive train, but still only managed 20.

So, you would simply use a Star Trek transporter to beam the stuff to the destination? Or would you make 10 trips with the stuff in the back seat of your GS? My woodworking customers would be pretty pissed if I cut my work in small enough parts to fit in your car. I'm sure you wouldn't want the moldings or handrails in your home pieced from 3 and 4 foot sections.

What would you suggest those of us who really need and use the capabilities of the Tacoma do?

Alternatively, I can get a Hemi Ram 1500, and get 10-12 MPG, or a Tundra, which is V8 only with 4WD, and get 13-14. Or, should I drive a hi-cube to get one sheet of plywood or drywall?

Heck, my favorite go-get-it-down-the-street vehicle is my Trek XO1 cyclocross bicycle with panniers and Niterider HID light, but it struggles a tad with a table saw strapped to it.

Now, as a commuter or family grocery getter vehicle, a 4WD truck is stupid and wasteful, but I don't think anyone asked that question.

I suspect that it would have been worse than 18 mpg. Hence, my statement that the Tundra does get better gas mileage than its competition. Just to let you know, my old truck did have big tires and was high off the ground like it was a 4WD. 20 mpg is still poor.

Exactly my point. I don't need to haul wood so a sedan is all I need to carry my wife and two children.